Anyone want to share their opinions/thoughts on these Nikon model offerings (sorry Canon users but your line seems pretty well defined)? Just a curiosity question so no need to go into a full-blown technical review.

Specifically, the:
D600
D800/D800E
D4

I use the D700 and donít need to upgrade since my camera isnít holding me back but I do like some of the new cameraís features. The problem I have about these models is this: Each has something I like but none has enough of the things I like to consider switching

D700 (Reference)
I like the clean iso 200-6400, 8fps with AA batteries in grip, 51 point AF, 8000 shutter speed, converts from D3 style with grip to smaller form-factor without grip, good tonal range, and button layouts are easy to use with one hand.
I donít like the lack of easily switching between settings, no video, and heavy for its size. I could say the 12 mp sensor but honestly I donít recall a need for more with the prints Iíve made but could use a little more headroom for crops.

D600
I like the U1/U2 feature and the reasonable 24mp sensor. I like the lighter weight and video capabilities.
I donít like the 5.5 max fps, 39 point AF, 4000 max shutter speed, and very little iso improvement over D700.

D800
I like the 36 mp sensor, improved 51 point AF, 8000 shutter, video, and greater tonal range.
I donít like the 4 max fps, if you shoot RAW itís 36 mp only with FX glass (Canon has smaller RAW1 and RAW2), iso performance is nominally improved (same 6400 upper limit as D700).

D4
I like everything (iso could be a little better)
I donít like the fact I cannot afford it

I talk about gear a lot on my Youtube channel. :3 Always open to more discussion.

Actually, the D600 was compelling enough for me to put in motion the switch from my existing DSLR system to Nikon (I've consigned most of my gear at a local shop, not selling as fast as I had hoped). Although, with the rash of refurbished D800 floating around, that seems like a far out, yet potential, option too. I'd probably rather put that cash into lenses though.

Feature for feature, Canon seems to charge more lately. It wasn't really on my radar.

D800
- A bit large, as I'm use to Pentax SLRs. Has the nice pro-level FF features like 1/8000th max shutter speed and 1/250th max flash sync speed and a more professional control layout compared to the D600.
- Reports of issues with left focus points, although said to be fixed. This would explain why so many refurbished D800 are around at the moment.
- High density pixel count makes the DX debate of extra reach pretty much pointless.
- Same batteries as D600 and D7000.
- 4fps continuous shooting is slow.

D600
- One of the smallest FF cameras, which I see as a benefit. Still has a nice 100% coverage viewfinder.
- 1/4000th max shutter and 1/200th max flash sync are the biggest negatives, but ISO 50 is somewhat of a help. Being FF is also a help because I would expect to use smaller apertures than I do on APS-C.
- Nicely featured video mode with mic and headphone jacks.
- Very similar to the D7000, which is the camera I have right now (picked it up cheap from a friend to hold me until the gear sells, will be my second as I use primes). Same batteries; dual SD card slots (again, Pentax uses SD)
- AF points are scrunched together compared to other FF cameras, but I most often use the center point alone anyways.
- Lens rental site reported an oddly high level of sensor dust accumulation on their first batch of D600 after being sent out to customers and returned (all 20 had similar dust pattern, normally 4 of 20 is what they expect).

D4
Certainly good, but much too expensive for me personally. Also, too large for my tastes.

I really want a D600. All my lenses are FF, and having the D3 be my only option for a primary body sucks if I'm not shooting all day. D600 + 24-120 f/4 and the new 70-200/4 would be an awesome lightweight travel kit.

I really want a D600. All my lenses are FF, and having the D3 be my only option for a primary body sucks if I'm not shooting all day. D600 + 24-120 f/4 and the new 70-200/4 would be an awesome lightweight travel kit.

That new 70-200 f4 VR does seem appealing. It would be nice if they offered that up with a $200 rebate on the D600.

My personal reasons.
Camera wise:
D4 - Professional - No problems with it - Not in my budget - End of story

D800 - I abuse my D300 for High FPS. The D700 at least hit 8FPS with grip. D800 not so much. That and cost are my stopping point. I might of splurged and went down the dark money pit. But its not "fast" enough.

D600 - Same issue as the D800 but worse with FPS. And now they remove the Multi-CAM 3500 engine. The 51 point is very nice. But the 39 point not so much. I abuse the autofocus engine. I normally use the 9-point on my D300. So you lose a little bit more on the top and bottom. So thats 2 points in my shooting style.

Also I don't have many Full Frame lenses. Had the D800 been the D700 and better in all aspects I might of jumped on it. The D700 is still very attractive even given its age I did order one in and had it in my hands before I returned it, it came in before I could really "afford" it and I did the responsible thing and returned it. The D600's been neutered enough.

I'm still waiting for my D300 replacement. I only hope they do make one and make it geared towards the market professional market that uses crop.

My personal reasons.
D800 - I abuse my D300 for High FPS. The D700 at least hit 8FPS with grip. D800 not so much. That and cost are my stopping point. I might of splurged and went down the dark money pit. But its not "fast" enough.

D600 - Same issue as the D800 but worse with FPS. And now they remove the Multi-CAM 3500 engine. The 51 point is very nice. But the 39 point not so much. I abuse the autofocus engine. I normally use the 9-point on my D300. So you lose a little bit more on the top and bottom. So thats 2 points in my shooting style.

What type of shooting do you do that requires 8fps give or take?

At full resolution, the D600 is slightly faster at 5.5fps than the D800 at 4fps (6fps in DX mode with a grip).

I've been shooting with the D800E for several months, now about 18k shots into it. My time has been split about 50/50 with portraits/cosplay and landscape photography.
No regrets whatsoever getting the D800E, I'm really excited to step up my work and take advantage of the new tech.

1. If you're not strict with how you shoot and what settings you use, the E would be a big waste of money. Without sharp lenses, the E would be a big waste of money. If you are sloppy, it absolutely shows in the photos (this also applies to the D800).

2. If you are strict in your shooting and have good lenses, the detail is incredible. Craftmanship of costumes can be showcased very well, since textures are captured so well.

3. The dynamic range is insane. When I would usually need a 3 stop GND filter now can be taken without one. It's a big deal. Especially when using high speed sync.

4. Moire is rarely an issue, even with all the different types of fabrics I end up shooting. Nearly all of the moire I've run into is while shooting cityscapes (railings in the distance and the like). It's pretty rare even then too.

5. Controls are slick. Very few issues. It's pro-style, which I prefer greatly.

6. Files are massive. Be prepared to optimize your workflow significantly. You will need a fast processor and a ton of storage space if you shoot a lot. For casual shooters, 36MP RAW on an average computer is probably a lot more hassle than it's worth.

I've shot with the D600 a bit, it's a pretty solid camera.
I think the controls would drive me insane.
It's much more reasonable for most photographers out there.

I've been shooting with the D800E for several months, now about 18k shots into it. My time has been split about 50/50 with portraits/cosplay and landscape photography.
No regrets whatsoever getting the D800E, I'm really excited to step up my work and take advantage of the new tech.

I removed my mention of the D800E. Your first-hand thoughts are very interesting in regard to the camera. Sounds very versatile.

D700 (Reference)
I like the clean iso 200-6400, 8fps with AA batteries in grip, 51 point AF, 8000 shutter speed, converts from D3 style with grip to smaller form-factor without grip, good tonal range, and button layouts are easy to use with one hand.
I don’t like the lack of easily switching between settings, no video, and heavy for its size. I could say the 12 mp sensor but honestly I don’t recall a need for more with the prints I’ve made but could use a little more headroom for crops.

D600
I like the U1/U2 feature and the reasonable 24mp sensor. I like the lighter weight and video capabilities.
I don’t like the 5.5 max fps, 39 point AF, 4000 max shutter speed, and very little iso improvement over D700.

IF you can't shoot it with 5 FPS, it's not the camera :P... Pros started the digital revolution shooting with cameras like this 2,700,000 pixel sensor with a whopping 1600 ISO limit, and could hit a maximum of 4.5 FPS with its motor drive.

By little ISO improvement... you mean effectively an additional half stop of LESS NOISE? Honestly Surfsama, if 25,600 isn't a high enough ISO, you're either a journalist or sports shooter who shoots crazy things, or you're doing it wrong ;P.

You have twice as much vertical resolution as those journalists not so long ago, faster frames per second, as well as 4x MORE stops of light from your high ISO. That's EIGHT times more light.

If you can't shoot it with 25,600, you're doing something wrong ;P.

and unfortunately you've fallen in to the marketing hype with the number of sensors, it's really mostly the cross types that matter.

And don't get me started on the DCS that you couldn't use above ISO 800- or it wasn't very pretty. Many of Nikon's greatest cameras had less than 15 sensors, until recent years.

The legendary F6... has 11.

It's sad that Nikon had to give in to the marketing... because I guarantee you won't see a big difference in focus between a D600 and D300s.

And when have you honestly EVER shot over 1/4000th of a second, and weren't just using some ridiculous aperture at the time?

Edit: It doesn't really matter though, because what's the difference between 1/8000th of a second an ISO100 and 1/4000th of a second and ISO 50. =none. There is almost nothing you are going to shoot that really needs that extra shutter speed ;P.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfsama

D800
I like the 36 mp sensor, improved 51 point AF, 8000 shutter, video, and greater tonal range.
I don’t like the 4 max fps, if you shoot RAW it’s 36 mp only with FX glass (Canon has smaller RAW1 and RAW2)

Why would you shoot low res RAW? Just shoot a JPEG in that situation....

If you want to shoot small raw (9MP), shoot a D700, if you want medium (20MP) shoot a D3x) Why would you buy a 36mp camera, and not intend to use all the pixels when you shoot RAW? That's what I'd like to know ;P.

IF you can't shoot it with 5 FPS, it's not the camera :P... Pros started the digital revolution shooting with cameras like this 2,700,000 pixel sensor with a whopping 1600 ISO limit, and could hit a maximum of 4.5 FPS with its motor drive.

By little ISO improvement... you mean effectively an additional half stop of LESS NOISE? Honestly Surfsama, if 25,600 isn't a high enough ISO, you're either a journalist or sports shooter who shoots crazy things, or you're doing it wrong ;P.

You have twice as much vertical resolution as those journalists not so long ago, faster frames per second, as well as 4x MORE stops of light from your high ISO. That's EIGHT times more light.

If you can't shoot it with 25,600, you're doing something wrong ;P.

and unfortunately you've fallen in to the marketing hype with the number of sensors, it's really mostly the cross types that matter.

And don't get me started on the DCS that you couldn't use above ISO 800- or it wasn't very pretty. Many of Nikon's greatest cameras had less than 15 sensors, until recent years.

The legendary F6... has 11.

It's sad that Nikon had to give in to the marketing... because I guarantee you won't see a big difference in focus between a D600 and D300s.

And when have you honestly EVER shot over 1/4000th of a second, and weren't just using some ridiculous aperture at the time?

Edit: It doesn't really matter though, because what's the difference between 1/8000th of a second an ISO100 and 1/4000th of a second and ISO 50. =none. There is almost nothing you are going to shoot that really needs that extra shutter speed ;P.

Why would you shoot low res RAW? Just shoot a JPEG in that situation....

If you want to shoot small raw (9MP), shoot a D700, if you want medium (20MP) shoot a D3x) Why would you buy a 36mp camera, and not intend to use all the pixels when you shoot RAW? That's what I'd like to know ;P.

Are you sure you've actually used that D700? Cause I'm telling you man, that's not the ISO limit of it ;P...

So wait, you're complaining that ISO 6400 isn't a big enough upgrade, but the 204,800 ISO of the D4 isn't good enough for you? Did I just get punked lol? I think we're in a no fact zone here lol >.>.

Hi Lupin,
I understand that sometimes people have comprehension problems so let me restate the topic of this thread:

Anyone want to share their opinions/thoughts on these Nikon model offerings

If I wanted a line-by-line opinion about what I THOUGH of these cameras I would have stated that upfront. Comprehension man - it's not just for book reports.

My thoughts as a Canon shooter : right now, I wish I had Nikon lenses : in the last year, Nikon has released three bodies, two of which I told myself I wanted to get (D800 and then D600), since they're both better and cheaper than their Canon equivalent.
But well, I barely have the money to get the Canon body I'd like to, so changing all my gear is close to impossible (and well, I like my Canon lenses).

Hi Lupin,
I understand that sometimes people have comprehension problems so let me restate the topic of this thread:

Anyone want to share their opinions/thoughts on these Nikon model offerings

If I wanted a line-by-line opinion about what I THOUGH of these cameras I would have stated that upfront. Comprehension man - it's not just for book reports.

So, if you want to answer the question I posed:

What is your opinion/thoughts on the c-a-m-e-r-a-s

Not what's your opinion about my opinion.

..

TLDR; 5 FPS and ISO above 3200 is more than enough for anyone's needs nowadays (not talking about professionals of course). So that pretty much leaves the D4 and D600. Unless you don't shoot action, then 4 fps is gravy.

A note about FPS- my 7D will do something like 8fps, and it's really nice for hand-held HDR shots. It's not action, it's just important that even slow moving things don't move much.

Honestly I haven't found high FPS to be that useful when shooting sports. Seems like I always am holding down the shutter early and not actually seeing the action and choosing my shots.

As for comparing current generation digitals to past generations- not a fair comparison. The state of the photography world is changing. You can toss out there that Ansel Adams was shooting a lot of landscapes at 1 to 3 frames per DAY and claim that you shouldn't need speed, or that the fastest film stocks were only ISO 3200. The fact is that there are shots that one can capture now that would have been really tough 5 years ago and impossible 15 years ago, and hopefully 5 years from now there will be even more possibilities. If I could get a camera that would shoot 200fps at ISO 2,000,000, I'd want it.

Hi Lupin,
I understand that sometimes people have comprehension problems so let me restate the topic of this thread:

Anyone want to share their opinions/thoughts on these Nikon model offerings|

I'm sorry that by not mentioning these C-A-M-E-R-A-S- by name, you have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'll explain it so you know which ones these are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

if 25,600 isn't a high enough ISO

This is referring to the D3, D700, D600 (as well as the D800/e) of course. These are the only FX cameras with that ISO as a limit, which also happen to be three of your four mentioned cameras. And obviously there are DX sensors with that sensitivity, but we're not talking about the 7000 here, are we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfsama

D600

I don’t like the... 39 point AF

Quote:

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

and unfortunately you've fallen in to the marketing hype with the number of sensors... because I guarantee you won't see a big difference in focus between a D600 and D300s.

and that was referring to the D600 (which has 39 sensors of course) and the D300 (which has 51, duh.), Also talking about C-A-M-E-R-A-S- here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

have you honestly EVER shot over 1/4000th of a second

&

Quote:

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

It doesn't really matter though, because what's the difference between 1/8000th of a second an ISO100 and 1/4000th of a second and ISO 50

If you have shot with the D700 like you said, I would imagine you'd know what its minimum ISO is? But I could be wrong. You may never shoot under 3200 for all I know.

FYI, the nikon D600 shoots at 1/4000th of a second max, which YOU specifically mentioned, so my apologies for figuring you'd understand my reference there.

Also, I was comparing it to the D700, ie, YOUR camera. Which you compared nearly all of these to. If you don't want it in this discussion, wherein you seem to want people's input about what's the best upgrade from the D700, then you shouldn't mention your camera at all in the first place.

The D600 shoots min ISO 50. AGAIN, here I am speaking about C-A-M-E-R-A-S-. in this case the D700 versus the D600; although admittedly these are cameras that you seem to know very little about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

If you want to shoot small raw (9MP), shoot a D700, if you want medium (20MP) shoot a D3x) Why would you buy a 36mp camera, and not intend to use all the pixels when you shoot RAW?

Again, here you were complaining about no S-Raw files? lol? I mentioned viable alternatives, which, without having to really think at all, also include the D600 as it has the same exact resolution as the D3x with a vastly improved sensor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfsama

If I wanted a line-by-line opinion about what I THOUGH of these cameras I would have stated that upfront. Comprehension man - it's not just for book reports.

IF I wanted a line by line reproduction of my post, with what you actually thought WAS NOT about cameras in any roundabout way, then I would as well, so please enlighten me.

Sarcasm/elitism, I guess on cosplay.com it's what's for dinner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfsama

So, if you want to answer the question I posed:

What is your opinion/thoughts on the c-a-m-e-r-a-s

Not what's your opinion about my opinion.

My thought on the C-A-M-E-R-A-S is wondering why my speak and spell never had the word C-A-M-E-R-A-S on it, otherwise I might understand what you're trying to spell out for me right now.